Outrageous spectacle lead to a rational resolution on the budget? A nation can dream, can't it?

By
David Shribman

JewishWorldReview.com |
Nobody is going to win the Battle of Sequester Gulch. The Republicans are going to lose, the Democrats are going to lose, President Barack Obama is going to lose, the economy is going to lose, the nation's image is going to lose and the entire political class is going to lose. It's not every day that Washington pulls such an arresting inside straight.

"Only Congress could find a way to cut spending and put the economy at risk and cripple the military," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in an interview the other day. "That's pretty impressive. We need to think of a new word that means 'beyond stupid.' We need to go to adjective school and find one."

Former Democratic Sen. Paul J. Kirk Jr. of Massachusetts wandered over to the conversation and added: "I shake my head watching this."

But it's not only Congress that looks bad. The White House often seems more interested in assessing blame than in ascertaining whether a deal might be made. And earlier this month, it contrived to shift responsibility for the capital stalemate by one of the smarmiest stunts in a generation: It canceled White House tours.

That may seem innocent enough -- until you realize that visitors to Washington get their tour tickets from congressional offices, which will be in the position of delivering the bad news.

In the unlikely event you don't intuitively know the case against both parties, here's a political primer for our time:

The case against the Republicans

They limped out of the 2012 elections bleeding from multiple wounds -- their presidential candidate stumbled over immigration, portrayed the very people whose votes he needed as slugs with their palms up for a government handout and showed no affinity for understanding the middle-class Americans who his advisers told him were the swing voters.

Some Republicans concluded that the only thing wrong with Tea Party ideas were that they hadn't been advocated with enough conviction and implemented with enough enthusiasm. Others argued that the problem with the party was that it showed a harsh, uncompromising face to a country desperate for a comforting, compromising outlook. Almost all of them maintained that the party's identity depended upon an unwavering opposition to new taxes.

At first the Republicans looked intransigent: the party of no. Then late last year, battered, they agreed to raise taxes. But rather than seem flexible and responsible -- any halfway good public-relations firm could have made that case easily -- they now seem confused and unfocused.

And while it is possible to argue that the Republicans have bent more than the Democrats since the election, they still are regarded as the stubborn party in this struggle. This is not an easy task but they have accomplished it.

The case against the Democrats

Mr. Obama won the election and claimed a second-term mandate the public might not have conferred upon him. Ordinarily this might not be toxic, but the low point of his first term was when he reminded Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia of what he already knew: that Mr. Obama was president and the then-GOP majority whip was not, and that elections (here he was speaking of his first victory, in 2008) had consequences.

Translated into English that meant: I won, you lost, get in line, Buster.

That was maybe not the best negotiating tactic for a president whose engagement in direct negotiations is a part-time thing and who might have blamed the economic crisis on his predecessor for a bit too long, perhaps forgetting that he asked for the job of president.

The Democrats profited for a few years by portraying their rivals as obstructionists, failing to recognize that their convictions were as strongly held and as deeply rooted as the Democrats'. Just last week Mr. Obama, on a dining spree, invited some Republican senators out for supper, the White House emphasizing that the event was at a neutral site. This was a very good impulse and a very bad explanation.

The White House and the Capitol themselves are neutral, American sites, no matter who has temporary political custody of them, and in the Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan years the White House was often used for presidential dinners with opposition leaders. That may be why the 88th and 97th Congress were so productive, and why the 112th and (so far) the 113th have been so frustrating.

•

One slick maneuver yet to be pulled: A former Democratic senator wonders whether a devilish Republican caucus might agree to a tiny tax increase as part of a stop-gap measure in the sequester drama. Then the Republicans could go to the country and say they gave Mr. Obama a tax increase not once but twice -- and now it is time for Mr. Obama, his reputation as a big taxer secure, to give them the big spending cuts they want and their constituents demand.

The worst-case scenario: This would be today's paralysis carried on endlessly, which would challenge our faith in democracy. Put aside the question of who is punished most severely by the sequester and whether it is really bad for the economy. This impasse undermines our system and is a symbol of our leaders' inability to do what they were elected to do: not to win a debate but to serve the country.

The best-case scenario: Let's return to Sen. Graham of South Carolina, born in a town called Central, often at the center of things but seldom a centrist. This is his take: "We might have maneuvered ourselves into some place that is so stupid that we have to do something rational."

This is a heck of a position to occupy, the world's sole superpower forced to be rational as a result of its own stupidity. But in the end, the much-avoided truth may be that it is easier, and better, to do a big budget deal -- the grand bargain, as it is termed in the capital -- than to implement the sequester.

Let's see how stupid our public servants can be in the hope that they might wake up and do the rational thing. Maybe they will. Because now it is clear that nobody is going to win the Battle of Sequester Gulch.

David Shribman, a Pulitzer Prize winner in journalism, is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Previously:

02/25/13 The one big thing Democrats and Republicans can actually agree on
02/18/13 Obama is wrong to make young people think college is mainly about making a living
02/11/13 The war inside the GOP
02/04/13 Presidential politics, frozen in place
01/28/13 Speech invokes past for present and future
01/14/13 If Obama's inaugural address is to be remembered at all
01/21/13 Identity crisis in the GOP
01/07/13 History meets firearms
12/31/12 In search of our better angels
12/24/12 Wounded in war, Inouye just kept serving his country
12/10/12 President as change agent
12/10/12 Another overtime election
12/03/12 Defining the Obama presidency: Our re-elected chief executive has the whip hand now, but how will he use
11/19/12 New Hampshire 2016
11/12/12 Obama's second chance
11/05/12 America's first martyr to free speech
10/29/12 Making hay in Iowa
10/15/12 When two men confronted each other from afar as civilization hung in the balance
10/08/12 If you look at the election a certain way, things don't seem so terrible
10/01/12 Debating the debates
09/24/12 Pessimists R Us
08/20/12 Obama remains a puzzle even as he asks the American people for a second chance
08/13/12 With Ryan, Romney upends the conversation
08/06/12 The real Romney remains hidden behind other people's opinions
07/30/12 What summer is for: How August can matter, and how Romney might use it
07/23/12 The Independent son of independent Maine promises to shake up Washington
07/16/12 The Rambler American
07/09/12 The Telstar revolution: Fifty years ago, a 3-foot orb was sent aloft and spawned a new era in communications
07/02/12 It's got only four electoral votes, but Romney and Obama will be fighting for them
06/25/12 A little noted rebellion over a lonely stretch of land helps tell the American story
06/18/12 You're nothing special: Luck is what you make of it . . . and what it makes of you
06/11/12 Anybody can talk authoritatively about the presidential election. Here's how
06/04/12 Candidates love to ally themselves with admired presidents, in sometimes unexpected ways
05/29/12 Americans aren't in a new burst of patriotism but they are in a new burst of appreciation for the military
05/21/12 Inside out: Almost nothing about this year's presidential election conforms to conventional analysis
05/14/12 Lugar grew into an elder statesman, which is why he'll be leaving the Senate
05/07/12 50 years later, MacArthur's farewell to arms continues to inspire
04/30/12 The likability factor: We're going to find out how important it is in these troubled times
04/23/12 Romney's four battles: With the nomination essentially in hand, he must turn to new challenges
04/16/12 For GOPers, expect the frustration to build, not abate
04/09/12 The political battles you cannot see
04/02/12 Romney's roadmap: Doing better in Democratic states may complicate his fall campaign
03/26/12 Romney struggles with same GOP forces his father faced long ago
03/19/12 The writer and the president
03/12/12 Romney could learn from his rivals after Super Tuesday
03/05/12 The GOP race continues, and Republicans continue to grouse about their choices
02/27/12 The turnout threat: when voters vamoose
02/20/12 The Winter's Tale: Republicans are engaged in a 'problem play,' full of psychological, and real, drama
02/13/12 Which Ike to like?
02/08/12 A tale of two elections: Voters today are making their most profound choice since 1912
01/30/12 Whither the GOP establishment?
01/23/12 The Democratic coalition is breaking up
01/09/12 The verdict that wasn't
01/02/12 These are the keys to who will persist
12/19/11 Another Gingrich rebellion
12/12/11 A defining fight for the GOP
12/05/11 A distinct lack of enthusiasm
11/28/11 For GOPers, the winds are beginning to pick up, the horizon is darkening
11/21/11 Today's polarized politics . . . blame FDR and the political scientists
11/11/11The sporting life
11/07/11 Ron Paul, true believer
10/31/11 Why Cain isn't able
10/10/11 GOP starting over
10/03/11 The Forgotten War of 1812
09/26/11 The way we live now
09/19/11 The crisis this time
09/11/11 But what will it mean?
09/05/11 A horse race column: Who might win the GOP nomination and how it might unfold
08/29/11 The vacuum calls
08/22/11 Passion and politics: How Barack Obama and Mitt Romney got crowded into the same dangerous corner
08/15/11 Eleanor's little village
08/08/11 The agony of August
08/01/11 The politics of the impossible: What a country this might be if the political class served the broad interests of the majority
07/25/11 Pennant fever grips 'Burgh
07/18/11 Exemplar of an era
07/11/11 On summer
07/04/11 The soul of the party
06/27/11 What the Secretary said
06/20/11 Romney has big advantages over his rivals, but they will be coming after him
06/06/11 One question each
05/30/11 The 14-week challenge
05/23/11 Delay tactics
05/16/11 Republicans are waiting
05/09/11 Bin Laden is dead. What does it mean?
05/02/11 From nobodies to nominees
04/25/11 The founders left slavery for future generations to settle, and we still haven't fully come to terms with it
04/18/11 From audacious to cautious
04/11/11 Dreaming of space
12/12/10 The GOP takes control
12/06/10 DECEMBER 7
11/29/10 GOP presidential hopefuls already are lining up local supporters in what is now a red state
11/22/10 Burning down the House
11/15/10 Institutions of higher learning are finally beginning to teach important lifeskills
11/04/10 The war has just begun
11/01/10 Echoes of a speech 40 years ago this week still resonate today
10/25/10 50 years ago America chose between two men who were dramatically different --- and eerily similar